Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?

[Flightfreak]

Originally Posted by deviljet88

KKW is now the home of spontaneus marriage proposals... Back on topic, that's some great arguing there, FF... Yes, why shouldn't we cut budget spending from law enforcement and defense and god knows what else, when the poor and hungry are... well poor and hungry? Here's an idea, let's have charity organizations run our countries!

where did I exactly say that I want to cut on defence?

[deviljet88]

Belgium's going to be attacked, OMFG OMFG OMFG.

Edit: OK lets do this properly..

Since when were the poor the ones who supplied the bulk of votes? Ahh wasn't that hard was it.

[hannahjane]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

i think i have a new crush,...,want to mary me?



Actually they found a trick for that. If a country sees that they are not going to make it (the 30% for example) than they can buy "clean air" in Russia.
Something what always annoys me is that, countries spend billions of dollars on prestige projects, knowing that they could spend that money on reducing the price of solar cells.
Because now the billing price of solar sells is expensive.
I also annoy my self to the fact that the Belgium state could reduce the energy costs of the public buildings with 30% if they would make those buildings more energy durable.
It annoys me that the world spends billions of dollars on space projects while the half of the world doesn’t even have decent drinking water!
(Ah well maybe capitalism isn’t as pretty like most people think it is)
We spend billions of dollars to fly to the moon, but we can’t make the emission of harmful gasses drop, why? The replacing technologies already exist, money should also not be a problem, if we can fly to the moon,...
The world raised and will disappear again too, humans won’t be able to stay on earth.
But is that a reason to say, “what do I care, it will pass my time�
That’s like saying “I wont be careful with my new car, he will be broke in 10 years anyway�
Apparently people have it a lot easier to care about their own car, than caring about the world they live on.

If the marriage proposal is referring to meh, (to which I certainly hope it is, else this is really beyond wanting to crawl into the earth embarrassing), then I will certainly consider it.

Especially on the grounds that you can argue a serious point, very well. I agree with all you say. I guess it boils down to greed really. Or over exuberent ambition - to want to fly to the moon rather than feed people or whatever. I agree that the logic in that is a bit f*cked.

Anyway to get back on topic, I'm really interested in what you said about buying clean air space from Russia. Could you eloborate on that in any way? I'm in love with Russia (as of reading Boris Pasternak's "Doctor Zhivago", a few years back now), and, I dunno I'm interested in this "clean air" theory. I mean, they're a huge country, but I'd guess they're not too polluting because they're nowhere near developed enough?! I'm not sure on their pollution status.

[Flightfreak]

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=1508

oh btw, do you have any instant messenger program? it could be handy to organize the wedding

[Kelsey]

I would love to hear what everyone has to say on this topic, especially since we all live in such a variety of places around the world and therefore experience all kinds of different examples and opinions on the matter. Today I got in an argument with a co-worker about global warming (I don't necessarily believe it's the huge deal we're told it is), and it's obviously becoming more and more of an issue (if not in nature, then among the earth's population). Is global warming as big of a deal outside of the U.S.? What are your thoughts on the subject?

[hasselbrad]

While I would like to see us burn cleaner, renewable fuels like ethanol, I don't think global warming is a phenomenon over which we have any control. Most of it is bunk science backed up with far too narrow a scope of data. People are all excited because the polar ice caps are shrinking, but they are actually larger now than they were in the '20s and '30s. Permafrost is melting, but I have a suspicion that this has more to do with what's going on beneath the Earth's surface than with what the air temperature is. A one degree change in the temperature isn't going to cause soil that's been frozen for ten millenia to thaw. People like to point to the increased cyclonic activity taking place in the Atlantic Basin as proof that global warming is taking place. What they fail to mention is that there has been a reduction in the amount of cyclonic activity in the Pacific Basin recently. This is a natural cycle that the Earth goes through over a span of about 20 years. And, the intensity of storms hasn't increased, only the population density of the areas they've hit.
If there is another Ice Age on its way, there isn't anything me, you or Greenpeace can do about it.

[EmotionSickness]

I'm none too educated on the subject, to be honest, but from what I DO know, I think it goes in cycles. They say "record heat", but we've experienced heat like this before...100 years ago.


In essence, there is little we can do to prevent global warming, or freezing, for that matter.

Edit -- haha, in other (more articulate and refined words): what Brad said.

[Katielondon]

global warming is mostly a natural thing, and that which is man made only accounts for a small amount of the total, of which most is factories etc, i hate the government using it as an excuse impose stupid taxes on motorists more just because thier short on money, the truth is everyone could drive around in 7 litre V8s that do about 10 miles to a gallon and it wouldnt affect the climate at all, the same must go for factories and plane companies whos taxes have been raised under the faulse acusation of ' causing climate change and global warming' if you ask me its just a thing which is mostly made up by the government to scare us and tax us more.

[deviljet88]

Of course it's a big issue outside the US, greenies and scientists don't just live there. I think global warming sucks but there's more destructive events headed humanity's way, and a lot sooner.

[Kelsey]

I think global warming is all crap. people just want something to be scared of.

[dave]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

you're entitled to have your opinion of course but i doubt you'll be able to refute the more and more upcoming evidence provided by scientists all over the world who spent their days and billions of dollars investigating this matter.

When 'Scientists' disagree the Scientific World becomes interesting. When I asked some of the Physicists that I worked with, they were pretty unanimous in saying that Global Warming isn't happening.

What I learned from working with some world famous Physicists is that there is a definite heirarchy in the Scientific Community. The money people make is determined by how much they 'Publish,' and how famous they are; not necessarily whether they are 'right.' Although being 'right' oftener than not does help. One of the things that is apparent is that Climatologists are not very high up on the 'Scientist' scale. To become more important, like Al Gore, they 'invent things.'

Flightfreak, when you say 'most Scientists do' thus and so, you are using statistics to lie. You have no clue what 'most Scientists' do so you pretend that you do and expect us not to challenge you. I challenge you to prove what you said.

You could show us some evidence presented by Scientists outside the field of Climatology. (Believe me that just because they have an advanced degree does not make them a Scientist. They even give PhDs in Psychology, and there is damn little Science there.)

[Hazzle]

OMG finally someone's challenging Pete to back up what he says This should be interesting

[dave]

OK, the first of your references I checked spent most of the 120 some pages of their 'report' telling why their computer projections didn't match their conclusions. They wanted more something or other to study further... Not a good sign for your side.

You list something called 'New Scientist' magazine. I thought that was one of those 'Popular Science for Democrats' type of magazines. Anyway I didn't read much of what they said because they seemed to be quoting the first report without any of the 'sorry that we couldn't actually prove what we are positing, because our computer models don't seem to match what our direct observations tell us' stuff.

Tell me something, please? Isn't the entire 'Science' of climatology based on Computer Models? and if those Computer Models don't match the direct observations within a 3 sigma margin of error, doesn't that lead you to suspect that either the computer models are wrong, or the conclusions drawn from that very mismatch are suspect? Now, if a 'Scientist's' entire field is based on Computer Modeling, and he can't get it right, doesn't that bother you a little bit?

Everyone who does really huge Hydrodynamic Codes knows that modeling is really hard. The Physicists that I worked with, (and the ones I talked about in my first note,) deal with modeling the effects of an atomic bomb blast underground. There aren't many codes bigger, or more important to 'get it right.' So, when a code looks like it works to model something up close (in time) and then diverges over time, there's usually a problem with the code. Since the divergence we are talking about here is the entire basis for their claims that 'the sky is falling', don't you think it might be more productive to develop a code which didn't diverge from their own observations?

Originally Posted by New Scientist describes themselves

Features

On top of that, our expert team of writers explores key developments in depth, in at least four feature-length articles every week.

So, 'New Scientist' is written by writers, not Scientists. I'll bet, when you're paid to write a story, you write it the way they tell you to write it. I know I did back when I was a Technical Writer for about six years.

[AureaMediocritas]

Wow nice discussion... holy moly !

As for me, I do not understand the details of the question and yet... if you are
not convinced of the negative effects of toxic emissions, try to let the engine
of your car run in a closed garage. I would say that at least for you, at that
moment, there is some minor damage being felt. And then imagine the same
experience with billions of cars world-wide, with the garage being our planet.
Imagining this, although it might sound retarded, makes me feel a tatty wee bit
unconfortable about it all.

Carry on please.

[dave]

And what do you say about Response when I put "global warming is false" in the firefox address line On That Site

According to one American climatologist, the "scare-them-to-death" approach seems to be the best way to get money for climate studies. Dr. Stephen Schneider, a leading prophet of man-made climate warming, stated this bluntly:
"To capture the public imagination... we have to... make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have.... Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest". 9

The IPCC reports, which have become bibles for bureaucrats and environmentalist fanatics, accuse modern civilization of being responsible for global warming, and repeatedly state that they reflect a true "consensus" of the scientific community. This statement about consensus is totally false: The assessments, conclusions, and even the working method of the IPCC are criticized by numerous scientists today. A more accurate description of the current situation would not be consensus, but rather controversy. Science does not progress via a process of consensus, or voting. There was no "consensus" for Copernicus's idea, in his time, that the Earth orbited the Sun. Consensus is not needed in science; it is for politicians.

And I do seem to remember some 'paper' awhile back which said that trees emit more CO2 than automobiles, (thus cutting down the rainforests is a method of stopping global warming...) :fencing:

and when I put "global warming is false" into Internet Exploder's address line I got

Amazon.com: Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death: Books: Ronald Bailey,Competitive Enterprise Institute by Ronald Bailey,Competitive Enterprise Institutewww.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761536604?v=glance

Letter from Frederick Seitz - Global Warming Petition Project
... Review of Global Warming Evidence. Below is an eight page review of information on the subject of "global warming," and a ...www.oism.org/pproject

"There is nothing so powerful as truth" - Daniel Webster. Global Warming and Modern Environmentalism. from Fascism, Environmentalism, and the Third Way. July 30, 2002 ... Editor's Note: This article on global warming, as well as separate articles on ozone ... crowd almost universally dismisses the anthropogenic-CO2/global-warming hypothesis as false ...opinionet.com/staff/gw1-switalski.shtml?PHPSESSID=4b320eb96a6f8c21f...

Global Warming: True or False?
... Global Warming: True or False?* C. O. Brittle, University of Michigan ... This paper is an attempt to examine this interplay, using the issue of global warming as an example ...http://www.riskworld.com/Abstract/20.../ab02aa028.htm

A False Consensus on Global Warming? - Center for Global Food Issues (CGFI)
Naomi Oreskes looked at 928 peer-reviewed studies in a data base on "climate change" and found "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position" on the Greenhouse Theory. ... A False Consensus On Global Warming? Dennis Avery. Do all of the world's climate scientists agree that humanity is causing dangerous global warming ...http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../jan_10_05.htm

I deleted the link to The Sierra Club since they obviously support the Global Warming Theory, (They must have had the word 'false' somewhere on the page. [aren't search engines wonderful?] )

Since I can't argue with people who do this all the time; and since I will undoubtedly deal with the weather no matter what it is for the rest of my life, I'm only willing to spend a little while longer trying to find a 'Scientist' I respect enough to talk about it with.

Oh, one more thing. You said that Physicist's aren't expert enough to dispute the climatologists and to debunk their modelling efforts. I ask you, "Where did the climatologists get their modeling codes?" Check back, and you'll undoubtedly discover that ALL of the climatologist's codes were originally hydrodynamic codes written by Physicists and modified for use by the climatologists.

This is a little later. The first link I chose to check is the last one above.

A False Consensus On Global Warming? by Dennis T. Avery
The "climate change" keywords also yielded one of the most famous studies in modern climate science: Gerard Bond's 2001 Science paper, "Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene." Being a historian, Ms. Oreskes may not have recognized that Bond's physical evidence of past climate cycles trumps the unproven Greenhouse Theory. In a seabed sediment core, Bond found a series of moderate, natural climate cycles—roughly 1500 years long, plus or minus 500 years. They stretch back hundreds of thousands of years. His 2001 paper confirmed the cycle's link to variations in the sun's irradiance, through carbon 14 and beryllium 10 isotopes in the sediments.

Ms. Oreskes should have looked under "climate variability." Bond and his colleagues don't think our climate is changing so much as varying naturally, but in roughly predictable ways. There's been a whole series of Chapman conferences on climate variability, with another proposed this year at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.

Three other papers found under "climate variability": Switzerland's Jan Esper and Fritz Schweingruber studied tree line changes in the mountains of Siberia, where the boles of one tree variety are preserved—living and dead— for hundreds of years. They found the treelines around 1000 AD were 30 meters higher than today, indicating the Medieval Warming had higher temperatures than we do. They also found the treelines had receded around the year 1350, at the start of the Little Ice Age, and advanced again with the Modern Warming.

Berger and Von Rad retrieved a 5000-year sediment core from the Arabian Sea—and found the same 1500-year cycle already found by Bond in the North Atlantic. It revealed the unnamed cold period before the Roman Empire, the 1150-year Roman cycle, the 900-year Medieval cycle, and the beginning of the Modern Cycle. Each cycle moves Earth's temperatures 2 degrees C above and then 2 degrees C below the long-term mean.

J.P. Kennett and a scientific working group on "Climate Variability and Mechanisms" concluded that Earth's climate in the past 10,000 years "is now known to have been highly unstable and prone to major, rapid changes, especially warmings, that occurred briefly within a few decades or less. . .The scientific community has made major strides in documenting the history of millennial-decadal scale climate change. . ."

There's no need for scientists to vote on whether the Earth has warmed in the past 150 years. Ms. Oreskes and the UN bureaucrats just need some way to distinguish their Greenhouse Effect from the natural cycle.

Let me suggest one: the Greenhouse Theory says CO2 will first warm the atmosphere above the Earth. The atmosphere will then overheat the planet by radiating heat from above.

So far, the Earth's surface is warming two or three times faster than the atmosphere. That's a big Mother Nature vote against the Greenhouse Theory.

[dave]

Originally Posted by dave

And what do you say about Response when I put "global warming is false" in the firefox address line

You might not want to research this particular link. It appears that it would result in our discussing the absolutely best way to eliminate the problems you see evidenced by 'Global Warming.' Nuclear Power Plants and almost free power for everyone.

Imagine, just as a 'thought experiment' that everybody had plenty of almost free power, that all cars were electric, that houses were heated with free electricity... That no industry burned coal, or wood, or even Natural Gas... That only trees emitted CO2.

You probably don't want to read this one , either.

The Global Warming Folly

by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.O., and D.Sc., who is a professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw. A multidisciplinary scientist, he has studied glacier ice samples from around the world, analyzing traces of heavy metals and radionuclides. He is well known as an expert on radiation effects, and has served as the chairman of the UNSCEAR (United Nations Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). Among his previous articles in 21st Century Science & Technology is "Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase, " Spring 1997, p. 42.

Despite billions of dollars and millions of propaganda headlines, the global warming prophesied by the climate modelling industry is not scientifically real
Opinions critical of the IPCC reports have been expressed by many prominent, competent scientists. For example, Or. Frederick Seitz, a past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, former Chairman of the Defense Science Board, and former Science Adviser to NATO, stated: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report." Dr. Keith Shine, one of the leading authors of the IPCC reports, described the editing process of the IPCC reports as follows:

"We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it's presented .... They don’t change the data, but the way it's presented. It is peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientist's report."

About half of the scientists who took part in preparing the IPCC report of 1996 do not agree with its conclusions hardly a consensus. Even the leading establishment science journals, Science and Nature, have exposed the IPCCs lack of consensus and its wrong methodology. Nature devoted two editorials to the subject, and an editorial in Science stated that: "If one examines some of the scientific articles on the subject [climate warming modeling], one finds virtually unanimous agreement that the models are deficient." The incompatibility of IPCC procedures with the usual standards of scientific research led Science to write that "IPCC's reputation for procedural correctness and consensus-building around scientific accuracy will be permanently compromised."

Thank you for making me do this. That was fun. I suspect you have some ruminations to attend to.

[the 48th Ronin]

I'll vote for your nuclear when you tell me what you are going to do about nuclear waste which is not free ...

Darn it Dave... I was enjoying reading this till you went nuclear!

[Kelsey]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

First of all it's pretty important that you have some understanding of the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is the natural process by which the atmosphere traps some of the Sun's energy, warming the Earth enough to support life. Most mainstream scientists believe a human-driven increase in "greenhouse gases" is increasing the effect artificially. These gases include carbon dioxide, emitted by fossil fuel burning and deforestation, and methane, released from rice paddies and landfill sites.

So what is your solution? Cut down all the trees? If Al Gore is to be believed, the problem lies within the carbon dioxide. His argument, which from your above response sounds like you would agree, is that the greenhouse effect is causing the heat from the sun to be trapped within the atmosphere, thus heating up the earth and causing "global warming." This idea has too many holes. One being: what grows when it gets warmer? Algae. What does algae do? It sucks up the CO2. So what's the problem?

Here is a quote from an article that cites Professor Tim Patterson, a paleoclimatologist from Carleton University: when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Something what most people don’t understand is that global warming is not something straight, it is exponential. For that reason, the smallest influence we have on a complex system as the world’s climate has far-reaching consequences.

What scientific study points to that? We can't even control the effects of the coyote-elk population in Yellowstone National Park. How the fuck can scientists accurately predict the temperature in fifty years, or what will happen when and if the average temperature of the earth rises a few degrees.

For example, when the upper water layers of an ocean warm up more, they mix up less good with the layers from below, which means that there will be less feeding substances in the top layer that can take up carbon dioxide (CO2) by photosynthesis.

But the warmer weather means longer growing season, so nature, as it has in the past, can easily balance itself out to make up for the lack of initial nutrients provided to the algae or whatever else on the surface of the water.

For example, the icecaps reflect the light back to the atmosphere, but when the ice melts, what is happening all over the world, decreasing ice cover will mean exposed land absorbs more heat and speeds up warming further.

Melting icecaps can mean more moisture in the air, right? More moisture can mean more clouds.... So isn't it possible that the increased number of clouds will reflect the sunlight? If that's the case, the water won't heat up. We don't know that won't happen any more than we know it will.

The latest reports on increased levels of glacial discharge, in the journal Science, reports the amount of ice being dumped into the ocean from the Greenland Ice Sheet has doubled in the last 5 years. Scientists had thought that global warming did not yet significantly threaten the ice sheet and it would take over a thousand years to break down.
A full breakdown would result in a catastrophic global sea level rise of 7 meters. That's bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.

Says Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki: "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier. In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
He's not the only one who thinks that:
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

you're entitled to have your opinion of course but i doubt you'll be able to refute the more and more upcoming evidence provided by scientists all over the world who spent their days and billions of dollars investigating this matter.

Try me. I think if I got enough people with titles and so called status to tell you that the moon is made of cheese, you'd believe that in a heartbeat. Oh, but that's just silly isn't it?

I'll be back later...this topic is awesome, let's keep it going.

[Swordsman]

Our asses are doomed one or the other, the atmosphere is screwed.

[dave]

I've got to get some sleep, but before I quit for the night, is four days ago recent enough?

one more note about the movie